We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

A California federal district court denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration of its drivers’ disputes concerning background checks, holding that the arbitration provisions in the drivers’ contracts were procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,No. C-14-5200 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2015). The court initially found that delegation clauses contained in the drivers’ contracts, which purported to reserve the adjudication of the validity and enforceability of the contracts’ arbitration provisions to an arbitrator, were unenforceable because they were not clear and unmistakable and conflicted with other language in the contracts. The court also found that the delegation clauses were unconscionable, as they were buried in the lengthy contract, had an onerous opt-out provision, and imposed substantial arbitration costs and fees on the driver. The court ultimately concluded that the arbitration provisions in the Uber contracts were procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under California law, and that contractual provisions purporting to waive private attorney general claims were void as a matter of California law.

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Arbitration

"I would like to thank the SCCA for this excellent service! The articles included in the newsfeeds are very useful and informative, and the user-friendly format of the newsfeeds means I can quickly glance over the précis in the emails to choose what to zoom in on."